Donohoe wants BALANCE!

[lordofgun]

Bucs reinforce Donahoe faith in balance

"There's still nothing wrong with offense," Donahoe said. "But it speaks to the fact that you've got to have balanced offense. For some reason, the Raiders got into the mind-set where they didn't have to run the football; they didn't even have to try. They got away with it for a while, but it caught up to them Sunday.

"To me, it's not sound football. You have to be balanced, and you have to be good on defense. In both respects, Oakland was a bit of a flawed team. Their defense got better, but it was never a dominating defense. It's almost a classic case again of a run-and-shoot offense that sooner or later is going to come undone."

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030128/1029778.asp

Nice to know we're not just going to rely on offense. I'd take a #1 defense over a #1 offense any day of the week.

[Earthquake Enyart]

If he believes in balance, he sure has the wrong OC.

[Pride]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
If he believes in balance, he sure has the wrong OC.

EXACTLY!

Also, a great defense will only go as far as it's offense doesn't kill them. Case in point. When buffalo had the leagues #1 defense, we were ousted in the first round of the playoffs.

[lordofgun]

Imagine a team with Buffalo's offense and Tampa's Defense. :drool:

[WG]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
If he believes in balance, he sure has the wrong OC.

Indeed EE! If he really means that then he should never have hired Gilbride to begin with, but even now, he should have fired him or demoted him to QB coach only. I don't think the combo of QB Coach/O.C. puts any substance behind Donahoe's words. It sends a completely opposite message.

The Bills are becoming a team that belongs in Missouri. The new motto should be "show me!"

We were anything but balanced this year and that was by design. Poor designer, eh.

Agree w/ ya LOG, if we get Henry to start getting 25+ carries a game, then we may very well be the best offense in the league just like K.C. was this season.

As it was this season, Henry only got the ball 25 times in 4 games.

[justasportsfan]

Gilbride audibles to Drew

"Alright Drew , we need a balance attack. We threw 30 times in the first QUARTER, now we need to run so TD doesn't get on my ass. I'll call in running plays BUT feel free to change the plays and throw whenever you want. You have my blessing"

[Earthquake Enyart]

Now it's Gilbride's fault? I thought it was Drew's? :eek:

[WG]

It's Drew's for tossing 15 INTs in 7 losses and adding another 3 lost fumbles in those games and Gilbride's for allowing the offense to pass so much that Henry only got 25 or more carries in only 4 games, 3-1 BTW.

Get rid of Gilbride and reduce the role of the passing offense on this team.

Feel like explaining how a QB like Johnson puts up 22 TDs by throwing only for barely over 3,000 yards while Drew puts up only 2 more with another near 50% of the yards?

Or how Green did simlar, 26 TDs in 700 fewer yards?

Neither of them have great receivers by any stretch. KJ is WAY overrated, mostly due to his own efforts. McCardell is a good #2 but that's it. Jurevicious, stepped up, but...

Kennison? Please!

So perhaps you can explain that for all the boys and girls here?

[WG]

I'll make it easy for you:

Drew: 4,359 yds, 24 TDs, 7.15 YPA, 61.5%, TD% 3.9%, TD/INT 1.6

Gannon: 4,689 yds, 26 TDs, 7.59 YPA, 67.6%, TD% 4.2%, TD/INT 2.6

Green: 3,690 yds, 26 TDs, 7.85 YPA, 61.1%, TD% 5.5%, TD/INT 2.0

Johnson: 3,049 yds, 22 TDs, 6.76 YPA, 62.3%, TD% 4.9%, TD/INT 3.7

[Ebenezer]

Dear Wys,

do me a favor...find me some stats on Average Drive Start and I think you'll see where to place the blame for 95% of the Bills problems.

Thanks,
Eb

[lordofgun]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
It's Drew's for tossing 15 INTs in 7 losses and adding another 3 lost fumbles in those games and Gilbride's for allowing the offense to pass so much that Henry only got 25 or more carries in only 4 games, 3-1 BTW.

Get rid of Gilbride and reduce the role of the passing offense on this team.

Feel like explaining how a QB like Johnson puts up 22 TDs by throwing only for barely over 3,000 yards while Drew puts up only 2 more with another near 50% of the yards?

Or how Green did simlar, 26 TDs in 700 fewer yards?

Neither of them have great receivers by any stretch. KJ is WAY overrated, mostly due to his own efforts. McCardell is a good #2 but that's it. Jurevicious, stepped up, but...

Kennison? Please!

So perhaps you can explain that for all the boys and girls here?

We had quite a few more rushing TDs than the Bucs did, Wys. Drew may have had a lot more passing TDs if we didn't run it in for the score. Compare our 17 rushing TDs with Tampa's 6 rushing TDs and you have your answer. You wanted us to be more balanced and, in fact, we were in that category.

More evidence that stats can be misleading.

[WG]

TD wise perhaps, not yardage wise nor # of plays wise.

BIG difference.

[WG]

Originally posted by Ebenezer
Dear Wys,

do me a favor...find me some stats on Average Drive Start and I think you'll see where to place the blame for 95% of the Bills problems.

Thanks,
Eb

What's the insinuation Eb?

That K.C.'s D put the Chiefs in such good FP constantly?

[lordofgun]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
TD wise perhaps, not yardage wise nor # of plays wise.

BIG difference.

I thought yardage and plays didn't matter...only touchdowns??

First you want to blame Gilbride for lack of balance when we were among the tops in the league in rushing TDs, then you want to blame Drew because Gilbride ran too many touchdowns in vs. Drew passing for scores.

Make up your mind man!

[justasportsfan]

You also forget wys that our D couldn't hold anyone down and by playing catch-up we ended throwing more which was obvious to other defenses.

[Voltron]

Why do we try to reason with him. We will never see his points, he will never see ours. I say let him wallow in his pessimism.

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
What's the insinuation Eb?


No insinuation, I'll be direct...shorten the field and you lessen the number of plays needed to march for all those yards, thus, decreasing the chance of making a mistake and committing a turnover.

Blaming Drew's TOs is not a hard thing to do. Could I not also blame Henry's TOs? He's not exactly in a glass house in this argument. He fumbles way too often.

Wys, you want more balence, which means more running. Thus, Henry would get the ball more often. If Henry gets the ball more often aren't the chances greater that he'll fumble more? Thus, the only thing accomplished is we shifted the blame of who causes the turnovers. BTW, while your busy getting those stats on average drive starts why don't you get the stats on TOs/touches. I think you'll see that Henry was as culpable as Bledsoe.

TOs can only be committed by a couple of people on the team. OLs don't often throw INTs. Whether it is Henry's fumbles or Drew's INT, the chance for either happening is lessened by shortening the field and decreasing the number of plays.

Does that all make sense?

[WG]

Originally posted by lordofgun


I thought yardage and plays didn't matter...only touchdowns??

First you want to blame Gilbride for lack of balance when we were among the tops in the league in rushing TDs, then you want to blame Drew because Gilbride ran too many touchdowns in vs. Drew passing for scores.

Make up your mind man!

We averaged 42 passing plays/game to 22 rushing plays.

How many ZBs do you want to wager that I can't find more than 3 teams w/ such an imbalance. I would suggest that the Raiders may be one, but after that, I can't think of any that might qualify off the top of my head. That's 66% passing, nearly 2/3 of all plays. How much more imbalanced can it get.

Heck, we're lucky to have had the D play well in the S.D. game in which Gilbride only went to Henry, who had had only 17 carries throughout the first 58 minutes or so, to win the game for us. If the game had been more balanced, it's my guess we'd have won by 20, not 7, and the game would have been under control at the beginning of the 3rd Q, not at the buzzer.

"First you want to blame Gilbride for lack of balance when we were among the tops in the league in rushing TDs"

Balance has nothing to do w/ quantity. It has to do with ratio.

Eg.:

K.C.: Perfectly balanced IMO; 27 passing TDs, 25 rush TDs by the RBs (27/25 = 1.08)

BUF: 24 Passing TDs, 15 rush TDs by the RBs (24/15 = 1.60)

Also, considering that Henry had 13 TDs on 1,400+ yards, he could have had 20 if he had averaged more than 20 carries/game.

As well, there's balance in being able to throw for TDs given the number of yards you throw for. Any QB is gonna have 1 or 2 TDs on 400 yards. What's more difficult is to be efficient so that you don't have to rely on 14 drives to be able to put up 2 passing TDs. Throughout his career, if you measure a QB by the number of TDs he gets per 100 yards thrown for, Drew is among the bottom among all QBs, not just the good ones.

That's what I mean by balance.

We'd all better hope we don't drop back to throw 42 times a game next year on average. If we do, then I'll assure us all that we won't be going to any SB or even any AFC Championship game unless Henry has 35 carries a game and we have such a good offense that we hold the ball for 35 minutes per game consistently and on average.


Originally posted by Ebenezer
Dear Wys,

do me a favor...find me some stats on Average Drive Start and I think you'll see where to place the blame for 95% of the Bills problems.

Thanks,
Eb

I'll leave the onus on you to show where FP was the difference. There's always some sort of excuse for the Bills under Drew. Few of them make any sense like just's indication that "we must have been behind" ..., when in fact that was disproven on numerous posts. I painstakingly took the liberties to lay out all the games and exactly how much we were behind when Drew tossed his INTs or fumbled the ball away.

So that excuse is old hat and totally unviable.

[WG]

Originally posted by Ebenezer



No insinuation, I'll be direct...shorten the field and you lessen the number of plays needed to march for all those yards, thus, decreasing the chance of making a mistake and committing a turnover.

Blaming Drew's TOs is not a hard thing to do. Could I not also blame Henry's TOs? He's not exactly in a glass house in this argument. He fumbles way too often.

Wys, you want more balence, which means more running. Thus, Henry would get the ball more often. If Henry gets the ball more often aren't the chances greater that he'll fumble more? Thus, the only thing accomplished is we shifted the blame of who causes the turnovers. BTW, while your busy getting those stats on average drive starts why don't you get the stats on TOs/touches. I think you'll see that Henry was as culpable as Bledsoe.

TOs can only be committed by a couple of people on the team. OLs don't often throw INTs. Whether it is Henry's fumbles or Drew's INT, the chance for either happening is lessened by shortening the field and decreasing the number of plays.

Does that all make sense?

I know what you meant. But assuming that the difference was in fact FP is errant. Similar arguments have been tossed up several times this season such as weather and "we're behind so Drew has to throw" and I've completely disproven both.

As to the fumbles, you tell me what we should do:

Henry had 1 lost fumble in our 8 losses.

Drew had 18 total TOs in 7 of our 8 losses.

Drew's been in the league for 10 seasons now and can't possibly get more hyped than he was this season.

Henry's a second year back who's shown remarkable improvement this season in spite of his fumbling issues. Why weren't the weather or "too much pressure" on Henry used as excuses for him? I'm not saying they'd have been valid, but just using it to point out the hypocrisy demonstrated by many.

In any case, I'll take my chances with Henry and if he fumbles, then we can look at it at that time. In the Jets game, the first one, sure, he had a fumble, but he also was the source of 60% of our offense w/ 3 TDs and a 149 yard day too. Unlike Drew who tossed 2 INTs for every INT in all of our toughest games.

Balance, remember! 7 TDs/15 INTs in 7 losses doesn't exactly scream out "balance", at least not to me!

Meanwhile, in games where Henry had a lost fumble, let's see how many TDs he had in them:

3/1
0/1
2/1
2/1
0/1
2/1
1/1
0/1

That's 5 of 8 games in which he had a fumble that he had more TDs. The Bills won 7 of 8 of those games.

Drew, in 7 games where Drew threw INTs, he not once had more TDs, and only twice equalled, 1/1 and 1/1. The Bills lost all 7 of those games.

Luck or other, I'll take my chances w/ the young Henry who's bound to improve!

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
How many ZBs do you want to wager that I can't find more than 3 teams w/ such an imbalance. I would suggest that the Raiders may be one, but after that, I can't think of any that might qualify off the top of my head. That's 66% passing, nearly 2/3 of all plays. How much more imbalanced can it get.
Eg.:

K.C.: Perfectly balanced IMO; 27 passing TDs, 25 rush TDs by the RBs (27/25 = 1.08)

BUF: 24 Passing TDs, 15 rush TDs by the RBs (24/15 = 1.60)

Also, considering that Henry had 13 TDs on 1,400+ yards, he could have had 20 if he had averaged more than 20 carries/game.

I'll leave the onus on you to show where FP was the difference. There's always some sort of excuse for the Bills under Drew. Few of them make any sense like just's indication that "we must have been behind" ..., when in fact that was disproven on numerous posts. I painstakingly took the liberties to lay out all the games and exactly how much we were behind when Drew tossed his INTs or fumbled the ball away.

So that excuse is old hat and totally unviable.

1. The Bills ran the ball 38.3% of the time. Detroit 38.3, St. Louis 35.1, NE, 39.5 and Oakland 40.%
2. You can't plan to balance TDs...just can't happen.
3. FP arguments got Parcells and Jimmy Johnson 2 SB rings each...I'll take their side on this one.
4. Unviable is not a word.

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
In any case, I'll take my chances with Henry and if he fumbles, then we can look at it at that time. In the Jets game, the first one, sure, he had a fumble, but he also was the source of 60% of our offense w/ 3 TDs and a 149 yard day too.

Stop throwing out numbers...

Henry had 149 rushing yards and 29 receiving yards.
The Bills had 384 total yardds

That's 46% not 60% of the Buffalo offense.

[WG]

Originally posted by Ebenezer


1. The Bills ran the ball 38.3% of the time. Detroit 38.3, St. Louis 35.1, NE, 39.5 and Oakland 40.%
2. You can't plan to balance TDs...just can't happen.
3. FP arguments got Parcells and Jimmy Johnson 2 SB rings each...I'll take their side on this one.
4. Unviable is not a word.

1. So where does that rank them? Is that last then? I can't imagine that there were many, if any at all, teams that ran fewer times than we did given that.

BTW, where did you find those stats?

2. I cannot agree more, but certainly you would expect that they are a measure of balance. My primary criteria would be a combination of plays run, pass or run, and yardage gained. For balance, plays would ideally be 50/50, but that's not practical so 55/45 is considered relatively balanced. We're 61.7/38.3 apparently. Obviously yardage would not be reflected in a 50/50 ratio, but say a 2/1 ratio or so. We were 4,400/1,600 or 2.75/1, way high.

I ran w/ TDs b/c someone else started in that way. Again, not my choice to measure balance. But there's no way to measure it where it comes up "balanced" for us. TDs are probably the best, but they're far apart comparatively.

3. Of course FP makes a huge difference. But unless you can show me where K.C. had such better field position all season long as Green tossed 2 more TDs than Drew on near 700 fewer yards, then you can't expect me to acquiesce that point.

I'll side with Parcells and Johnson as well, neither of whom built SB teams around their QBs.

Johnson: Emmitt and tough D
Parcells: Great rushing and tough D as well

Where do they differ from my viewpoints?

4. Sorry :D I learned something new today. Make that "not viable" then. Hope it didn't throw you. ;)

[WG]

Originally posted by Ebenezer


Stop throwing out numbers...

Henry had 149 rushing yards and 29 receiving yards.
The Bills had 384 total yardds

That's 46% not 60% of the Buffalo offense.

He contributed a LOT more than Bledsoe did in that game.

He was responsible for 21 of the Bills 31 points. To boot, Bledsoe's performances in the red zone have been abysmal this season.

Bledsoe ended 5 of the Bills 12 drives in that game via either incompletions or 2 INTs.

He had 1 inconsequential TO to 3 TDs vice Drew's 1 TD to 2 consequential INTs.

Again, not yardage wise, but contribution wise. We would have been a lot worse off in that game if Henry hadn't rushed for 149 and had 178 total yards, almost half of the Bills net yards on the day, 384.

[Earthquake Enyart]

Aikman wasn't a great QB?? :huh:

[Ebenezer]

One final word on turnovers...

DB had 1052 touches (passes, sacks, rushing handoffs) or opportunities to commit a turnover.

TH had 368 touches (325 rushes, 43 catches) or opportunities to commit a turnover.

DB had 15 Ints and 5 lost fumbles.
TH had 8 lost fumbles.

In other words:

DB lost the ball once in every 52 touches.
TH lost the ball once in every 46 touches.

Giving the ball to Henry more won't decrease DBs touches. It will only increase the chances that Henry fumbles more.

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Wys Guy


He contributed a LOT more than Bledsoe did in that game.

He was responsible for 21 of the Bills 31 points. To boot, Bledsoe's performances in the red zone have been abysmal this season.

So if Bledsoe had thrown for 400 yards but TH scores 21 points and gets 50 yards rushing he contributed more??


Originally posted by Wys Guy
Bledsoe ended 5 of the Bills 12 drives in that game via either incompletions or 2 INTs.

As do all QBs that lead drives that result in punts...never seen a QB yet that went threw a career without leading drives nowhere.



Originally posted by Wys Guy
Again, not yardage wise, but contribution wise. We would have been a lot worse off in that game if Henry hadn't rushed for 149 and had 178 total yards, almost half of the Bills net yards on the day, 384.

There is absolutely no way to tell that.

[Romes]

Originally posted by Wys Guy

I know what you meant. But assuming that the difference was in fact FP is errant. Similar arguments have been tossed up several times this season such as weather and "we're behind so Drew has to throw" and I've completely disproven both.


I have not contributed to this arguement in a while but I have read and followed it pretty closely. Wys, no offense, you may feel that you have "disproven" whatever arguements people bring against you but I just feel that the arguements keep going around in an endless circle. I'm not asking you to go our again and re-hash all your old arguements, but I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you, that you have fully proven your points. I'm not even sure if they can be proven without a doubt.

[WG]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
Aikman wasn't a great QB?? :huh:

He sucked according to the way that you measure Drew!

How many yards, attempts, completions and even TDs did Aikman ever have in a season? Did he ever break 20 TDs?

Certianly the team wasn't built around him. Read the context in which that argument took place please.

[WG]

Originally posted by CalBillsFan


I have not contributed to this arguement in a while but I have read and followed it pretty closely. Wys, no offense, you may feel that you have "disproven" whatever arguements people bring against you but I just feel that the arguements keep going around in an endless circle. I'm not asking you to go our again and re-hash all your old arguements, but I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you, that you have fully proven your points. I'm not even sure if they can be proven without a doubt.

That's cool Cal. :D

Seriously, that's fine. They were that "Drew tossed his INTs b/c the Bills were down by so much that they had to throw" and "The weather was a factor in the last 10 games of the season when Drew put up only average stats", and that's being polite.

I did lay that out, game time temps, weather conditions, etc. along with scores at the time of his INTs. Further, I even pointed out how it was his own INTs that created big leads anyway.

If you want to go fetch a handful of games where those things applied, then feel free. Please make it more than one each BTW. As to the weather argument, what else shoots that in the foot is that Drew had his best game in some of the worst weather we've seen in years in the Miami game. I was there. It was cold, windy, and pretty bad. I was uncomfortable and I don't get cold easily.

In any event, simply not believing that they were not a factor w/o looking into them is the other half. Don't think they mattered, fine. But then to say that they were a factor when they were not and thereby supporting arguments made as a result isn't being intellectually honest.

[WG]

Originally posted by Ebenezer
One final word on turnovers...

DB had 1052 touches (passes, sacks, rushing handoffs) or opportunities to commit a turnover.

TH had 368 touches (325 rushes, 43 catches) or opportunities to commit a turnover.

DB had 15 Ints and 5 lost fumbles.
TH had 8 lost fumbles.

In other words:

DB lost the ball once in every 52 touches.
TH lost the ball once in every 46 touches.

Giving the ball to Henry more won't decrease DBs touches. It will only increase the chances that Henry fumbles more.

One word in follow-up:

Henry's 8 lost fumbles had a "bottom line" consequence in only 1 game.

Drew's 18 TOs, of 19 I believe, not 20, (I could be wrong), had a consequence in every single game in which they were made and we lost every single one of those games.

As well, and to reiterate, Henry will/should improve. For a veteran QB to throw those kinds of INTs/FUMs in the quantities that he tossed them, A) Will not change especially since he's done that in every single season, and B) just shouldn't be happening if he's nearly as good as everyone raves about.

Call it bad luck, although I don't see how since it's a trademark of Drew's, or call it anything you want, but averaging more than 2.5 TOs/game in 7 of 8 losses is inexcusable.

Again, if it happens again next season, you won't be pleased right along side me. I'd even wager you cash or ZBs, not b/c it's what I want but b/c it's been a trend now for 10 seasons, that Drew will do similar and toss more INTs than TDs in the 8 games vs. the division and Tennessee and Philly, our 8 toughest games at this point it looks like. I'll even do that sight unseen of those teams before the season begins and w/o knowing injuries, etc.

If he continues on the pace he was on over the last 12 games of this season, he'll finish next season w/ 18 TDs and 17 INTs. I'm not expecting that since he'll light up some shoddy Ds, but that's the pace he was on after games 1-4.

[justasportsfan]

wys is blaming Drew for the losses but blamed the OL when Rob was getting killed for 4 years.

wys what was Rob's winning pct. as a bill and why you supported him til' even after he got cut and why you think Drew is so bad for the bills (now but then you've been known to change your mind) despite being .500 "in his first year" as compared to Rob?

I am not trying to turn this into a Rob - Drew thing just trying to make sense of your QB standards.

[Typ0]

LOG, stats aren't misleading people are.

[Bulldog]

Wys, why do you neglect some of Drew's better games in the beggining of the season when you calculate his stats for the following season? I don't feel this is very realistic.

[Patrick76777]

Ridiculous! Just ridiculous!

[lordofgun]

Originally posted by Typ0
LOG, stats aren't misleading people are.

You're telling me. I just don't know who to trust anymore. One person says it's all Drews fault. Another says it's all Gilbride's fault.

Oh wait...that's the same person. :D

[TedMock]

You guys have to stop man. We're beating a dead horse that neither side is going to budge on and now everybody's arguing with all of their statistical analysis. STATS LIE!!! We all know that, anybody who's played a competitive sport at any level knows that. I guess baseball would have the stats most like reality but football? No way. We all have our opinion as far as players go but that's just it, it's our opinion. I just think that these arguments are getting old with both sides saying "what he/they fail to realize or acknowledge ....blah, blah, blah". I'm sorry, I had to vent.

[lordofgun]

Well said Mr. Mock.

[Rude American]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
Now it's Gilbride's fault? I thought it was Drew's? :eek:

It's extremely confusing.

[Rude American]

Originally posted by lordofgun


You're telling me. I just don't know who to trust anymore. One person says it's all Drews fault. Another says it's all Gilbride's fault.



It's extremely confusing.

[Patrick76777]

Originally posted by TedMock
You guys have to stop man. We're beating a dead horse that neither side is going to budge on and now everybody's arguing with all of their statistical analysis. STATS LIE!!! We all know that, anybody who's played a competitive sport at any level knows that. I guess baseball would have the stats most like reality but football? No way. We all have our opinion as far as players go but that's just it, it's our opinion. I just think that these arguments are getting old with both sides saying "what he/they fail to realize or acknowledge ....blah, blah, blah". I'm sorry, I had to vent.


Did you say stats lie?


I guess if we all agreed on that, we wouldn’t be arguing in the first place.

[Rude American]

I would argue for the sake of arguing.